DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND STATEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OFFICE
v.
J.H. AND E.H.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court may deny termination of parental rights despite proving grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence when the trial court finds, after considering all statutory best-interest factors, that reunification is possible with services, a safety plan, and ongoing judicial oversight.
[1] In a termination of parental rights case, a trial court may deny termination despite proving statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence when, afte…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Recognizing that under other circumstances the results could have been very different and even tragic, it is only because of these unique facts that we can affirm.”
The court's explanation for affirming the denial of termination despite proven grounds for termination.
Parents caused serious injuries to their three-week-old son, including eleven fractures and patterned bruising, by forcefully manipulating his legs an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supervised Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2026-0277
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES, Appellant,
v.
J.H. and E.H., Appellees.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. Steven Christopher Warrick, Judge.
May 29, 2026
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Children and Families appeals an order in which the trial court denied the Department's petition for immediate termination of Appellees' parental rights. The court denied the petition despite finding by clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents inflicted serious injuries on their three-week-old baby boy, and that legal grounds existed to terminate parental rights as to both the baby and his toddler sister. The parents said the baby was gassy, so they "bicycled" his legs and "rubbed" his lower chest and abdomen to help him pass the gas. They said that within a day or two, they noticed bruising and swelling on his leg, so they took him to the pediatrician, who sent him to the emergency room, where the Child Protection Team
was called. Medical testing established that the baby had visible patterned bruising, and had suffered a total of eleven (11) fractures that had not started to heal: a right fractured femur, likely caused by forceful twisting or wrenching; a fracture in his left tibia; and multiple fractures to his middle and lower ribs.
The trial court found that both parents had committed "egregious conduct" and aggravated battery, sufficient to justify termination of parental rights. See § 39.806(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2025) (defining egregious conduct); § 39.806(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (defining aggravated battery). The children were adjudicated dependent. The trial court placed them in the care of the father's sister, who moved into the parents' home with the children. The parents have participated in counseling and exercised regular supervised visitation with the children, with no adverse results reported.
Another significant fact is the passage of time between the abuse and the order on appeal. Although the abuse occurred in the first days of April, 2025, the trial did not start until September 18. Trial was continued twice, spanning three non-consecutive days and ending on October 28. The trial court rendered the order on appeal on December 30, 2025. The order addressed all statutory factors of the children's best interests. See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. While the trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven, the court also found it significant that the parents had been, in the words of the case manager, the "most upstanding" parents in the manager's experience. With the benefit of reports on the children's then-current well-being, the continued involvement of a relative caregiver in the home, and the parents' access to services, the trial court concluded that reunification might be possible with services, a safety plan, and ongoing judicial oversight. Recognizing that under other circumstances the results could have been very different and even tragic, it is only because of these unique facts that we can affirm.
AFFIRMED.
KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; OSTERHAUS, C.J., concurs in result with opinion.